|
|
Post by trappincoyotes39 on Mar 19, 2012 17:12:14 GMT -6
|
|
|
|
Post by ChrisM on Mar 19, 2012 17:51:17 GMT -6
"Core area" LOL
Silly studies.......
But Im pretty sure this "avoidance of new items" theory is for real... cause I read a whole article about it in FFG.
|
|
|
|
Post by trappincoyotes39 on Mar 19, 2012 18:58:29 GMT -6
Artical in FFG  The great white bucket  |
|
|
|
Post by trappnman on Mar 20, 2012 9:49:57 GMT -6
I've read this before, and in general agree with what they are saying- have a high density of traps over a large area, and you are going to catch coyotes.
one flaw in the study, is IMO the total randomness of lures and baits- if one purpose of the study was to determine susceptibility to traps, than the only true comparison is with exact same baits and lures and the exact same sets- in high density populations like Texas probably didn't matter, but most similar studies use the same or at least control factors as baits and lures
but here is what I take away from the study-
We observed greater vulnerability to capture in areas more intensively used by coyotes.
|
|
|
|
Post by Zagman on Mar 20, 2012 12:27:33 GMT -6
While I understand your take away on this study......wouldn't that be a given? I am sure you didn't need a study to tell you that.
We would have more success in general where there are more coyotes spending the most amount of their collective time, right?
Just like the calf dumps......."a dump with three calves is less attractive than one with 30 calves"......paraphrasing, but that was the gist.
Again, doesn't this confirm what we, as trappers, already know?
220's in trails are more productive with coon trails that coon are using than ones they are not using......
Fast food and smoking, after careful study, has been deemed unhealthy.
***************************************************
I am being flippant and certainly not disparaging those that post these studies. Some of the "AH-HA!" moments seem pretty obvious.
That certainly does not mean there's still tons of good info in there to glean..........
I guess in the end, researchers are not trappers, the reasons for these studies and funding thereof is not our concern. We can read them and benefit a lot or a little from them at our discretion.
I think we are all guilty of supporting ideas from these studies that confirm what we know or do, and we poo-poo ideas from these studies that are contrary to what we know or do. Human nature, I reckon.
MZ
|
|
|
|
Post by trappnman on Mar 20, 2012 17:00:19 GMT -6
Actually, many of the researchers WERE trappers. Sherm Blom was, Gese was, Phillips was- indeed, most of the researchers prior to 1970 WERE trappers
the studies that were posted here, show that certain actons like circling occur much more so at some locaitons, and little or not at all at others. How can that not, have relevance to where and how we set our traps?
What I posted from the study, is similar to what you posted as a summation of what I posted, but its not the same thing at all.
and a dump with three calves is less attractive than one with 30 calves" is important because of the spatial mobility of overlapping territorys and the visitation rates
I've only read 100 or so studies, and find much of what I thought to be obvious, not to be so. Or rather what they are doing might be obvious, but whats important is why.
but perhaps I'm wrong- and perhaps if I read 1000 studies or have a more working knowledge of the research facilites, I might have a different opinion of the validity of studies.
|
|
