|
Post by trappnman on Jul 5, 2010 7:03:10 GMT -6
YOU stated bmps did more good than bad- I asked you "WHAT GOOD" - twice
Gary asked you twice, how has the bmp's made you change your technique's.
Have I SAID they have changed my techniques? no- so leave what ifs and coulds and might have beens where they belong- in your head.
Gary made a definitve statement that bmps CAUSED good- not I.
Gary stated how much good they did- so a fair question, is what good? I was trying to see if he had any substance to his statement, or just blue sky.
But, I guess if we use the grand concept of a double negative- coon bmps are crap, but so far not impliemented in any state- as using that concept to make something "good"- then I guess the bmps ARE good-
yet- WI partnered with HSUS, IN dnr is filled with non hunters, non trappers antis if you will- so lets see how long that double negative still equals good down the road.
Canada has eliminated footholds for coon- why? bmps?
Show me any instances, where bmps HELPED trappers.
TC- if you believe all that nonsense, then you do- after all, since you got paid for bmp testing, hard to bite the hand that fed you, or dare risk alienating SD F&G.
we get 300,000 hits a month here- think we have 300,000 reading?
|
|
|
Post by thorsmightyhammer on Jul 5, 2010 7:29:38 GMT -6
so leave what ifs and coulds and might have beens where they belong- in your head.
Exactly.
I dont see whats so necessary to get bent out of shape about it.
|
|
|
Post by trappnman on Jul 5, 2010 7:34:07 GMT -6
bent out of shape? replying in the spirit..........
my question was a legtimate one- when someone states that something does far more good than harm, its fair to ask- what facts, led one to such a conclusion?
I have never seen, where anyone except those involved in the bmps in some way- ether doing the testing, or working for agencys that have a vested interest in such, have stated that the bmps have done good.
Where? how? I know of no examples, concrete examples- beyond that double negative.
If you know some, perhaps you could share?
|
|
|
Post by trappnman on Jul 5, 2010 7:47:06 GMT -6
Robert- those are exactly the points Sinrud was making concerning snaring-
Shouldn't any "study" be non objective to have merit?
|
|
|
Post by trappincoyotes39 on Jul 5, 2010 8:52:07 GMT -6
Tman my participation is and always will be 100% voluntary!!!!!!!!!! WE can choose to do work on the BMP"s or do 40 other things, the old saying "it all pays the same" is true in this case as well!!!!!
For the sake of fur trapping period you should hope that "ALL" states game depts have a vested interest in the BMP's, that "vested" part would be alot of their time and their money becomming edcuated from the top down in all Game agencys trapping. You make it sound as though the game depts are getting some big check from IAFWA for beinf "PRO" BMP not the case those states that are involved spend a portion of their own funds each year to keep up on trapping news, and information exchange between state depts, this is all paid bu their rspective states. Imagine Game depts spending money on trapping related issues? Weird huh? Trapping matters has done alot to get more people in the wildlife profession educated about trapping and started an effort to get game agencys to devote time and money to this thru the BMP process.
Before the BMP's came about theire was NO regional workshops on furbearers and exchanging of ideas and teaching done between states, that has been a positive for trappers. Many people in many states have become far more educated about trapping from these wrokshops as well, you get many with higher positions that know little about trapping in this day and age and information exchange, power points with data and techniques have all helped show trapping is a legitimate tool for furbearer management.
|
|
|
Post by Gibb on Jul 5, 2010 9:57:37 GMT -6
"Canada has eliminated footholds for coon- why? bmps?"
Steve, different provinces have different regs for raccoon. Ontario stopped the use of footholds for Raccoon in 1983.
This fall 2010 Ontario and Quebec will be able to use foot restaining traps, the Lil Grizz and Duffer for the first time for Raccoon. Jim
|
|
|
Post by robertw on Jul 5, 2010 16:15:55 GMT -6
TC39;"Before the BMP's came about theire was NO regional workshops on furbearers and exchanging of ideas and teaching done between states, that has been a positive for trappers."
So what your saying is that until this funding came about, the Furbearer Biologist didn't have an excuse to have regional meetings?
Wouldn't you think they could think of more constructiveways to spend this much money??? Like promoting a FUR MARKET!!
|
|
|
Post by thorsmightyhammer on Jul 5, 2010 16:44:04 GMT -6
why would it be their job to promote the fur market
|
|
|
Post by robertw on Jul 5, 2010 16:55:43 GMT -6
#1 would be job security, then there is the issue of wildlife management (doesn't seem to be a priority any more in some states), the revenue generated by permit sales etc etc.
#2 When the BMP were first proposed (I think it was 99 or 2000) and presented to the trapping community at the NTA convention in Columbia Mo this was one of the big selling points.....I still remember Dave Hamilton and John Olson talking about running advertisements in Red Book and other womens magazines of models wearing fur coats promoting fur.
|
|
|
Post by trappincoyotes39 on Jul 5, 2010 17:26:27 GMT -6
No robert I'm saying many furbearer biologist in many states new little to nothing about trapping at all. Times have changed and those taking these positions in the last 15 or so years are out of the trapping loop in a large portion. The BMP process has helped highlight topics on trappers and trapping, like it or not those are facts!!!!! Job security to promote a fur market? Serious? There job is to collect data and monitor those species that they are responsible for, not worrying about the fur market in such a large way their jobs depend on it. You can thank in a smaller way the BMP's as an avenue for states to have more priority on furbearers as well. It has little to do with the priority in some of those states but comes donw more to the dollars they lack to have a full time burbearer biologist. Some of these states if they where to pay this position strictly from license sales it would not work due to declining trapper numbers. With all the technology available today and things upper middle class and the rich can spend there money on you think running ads in redbook would have a measureable effect on fur sales in the US? Many of the very people who can afford fur live or are moving to states with less tax burden the majority of these states are in the southern US where fur does what for them? It maybe fashionable, but in FL what month do you head to the night club in your fur jacket? A state game agency is their to promote the benefits trapping has as a population tool for the betterment of the species and other species they impact, not on how some rich lady can go buy a 20,000 jacket!!!!! That is up to the trapping orgs.
|
|
|
Post by cooter1 on Jul 5, 2010 17:55:09 GMT -6
For those of you who are against the BMPs, could you suggest some alternate studies that I could use to help educate our Fish and Wildlife commission? As president of our state trapping association, I am trying my best to educate our FWC to try to at least be able to use padded jaw footholds, with out the special permit, on state and private land. I have been talking to the executive director of Fl FWC, and he seems open to learning more about trapping. Any help ya'll can give me would be appreciated. Cody L Sikes
|
|
|
Post by trappincoyotes39 on Jul 5, 2010 18:15:50 GMT -6
Cody the BMP's are a great tool and he could talk to others in different states as well. I don't know if you can get the trapping matters workshop on DVD or another form but is agreat educational tool for anyone in the wildlife management field!!!! It covers many topics willdife professionals have to deal with in their postions with the public and has good information on traps and trapping benefits. Mr White in MO might be able to help you or the head of your dept.
|
|
|
Post by cooter1 on Jul 5, 2010 18:33:36 GMT -6
Thanks, I will see if I can get a hold of a copy.
|
|
|
Post by trappnman on Jul 6, 2010 6:35:54 GMT -6
state game agency is their to promote the benefits trapping has as a population tool for the betterment of the species and other species they impact, not on how some rich lady can go buy a 20,000 jacket!!!!! That is up to the trapping orgs.
huh?
|
|
|
Post by trappincoyotes39 on Jul 6, 2010 13:19:23 GMT -6
What I mean is trapping promotion is a 2 pronged approach, the Game agency's are better off promoting to the public the benfits of control for biological benefits to the public and the trappers orgs are better off promoting trapping/calling for the benefit of fur sales and fur promotion.
|
|
|
Post by Gerald Schmitt on Jul 6, 2010 19:47:07 GMT -6
It would be nice if the BMPs could bring back the foothold trap to some states that have lost it. To me it is beyond comprehension that you can't use footholds in large western states like WA, CA, AZ, and CO. Or not use them without burdensome restrictions.
Cody, good luck in your efforts, it would be great if you folks could use footholds again.
|
|
|
Post by thorsmightyhammer on Jul 6, 2010 20:17:49 GMT -6
#1 would be job security, then there is the issue of wildlife management (doesn't seem to be a priority any more in some states), the revenue generated by permit sales etc etc.
Robert I dont think its ever the job of a public official to promote something so that he/she has job security.
|
|
|
Post by bobwendt on Jul 8, 2010 3:25:25 GMT -6
since tc has refused to answer on other threads, I`ll ask here. were land sets for coyotes and other terrestrial animals , for the bmp testing, run on 24 hr cks? if so why? and if so, what good are the bmp`s for extended ck states?
|
|
|
Post by trappincoyotes39 on Jul 8, 2010 5:29:09 GMT -6
Bob YES they where all run on 24 hr checks so all testing was done to the same standards. Why? you know why has the majority of states have 24 hr checks laws. What good are the BMP's for extended checks states? Easy still you gives you a guidline as to what traps will work well as far as animal comfort and effcintcy.
Bob guess what? There was and East and West coyote BMP done too, you want to know why? AS the west has alot less domestics so other trap types where tested there. Traps that are legal in the west and not in some states in the East due to jaw size restrictions some states have imposed at the state level Bob.
Bob my bet would be if you did BMP testing and extended the check times what you would find are many of the standard factory traps would rsult in higher injurt scores and the majority of the high end traps would be the ones still with a passing mark and the modified traps as well. Hence the reson for the desgin and construction of these traps in the forst place, designed and built for extended check trapping!!!!
|
|
|
Post by bobwendt on Jul 8, 2010 5:40:57 GMT -6
nothing would pass on an extended ck. zero, nada , zip. if it holds tight enouh to keep him there 2-3-5-7 days, the foot is dead from lack of blood supply, i.e. rots and falls off in time. irregardless of what a layman with no medical knowledge thinks. this is not even debatable.
|
|