|
|
Post by TDunn on Mar 3, 2004 14:58:23 GMT -6
If one gets up into northern Canada and Alaska and such places where the big timber wolves are quarry, what types of traps would be preferred for such a big animal and such tough tough conditions?
|
|
|
|
Post by Stef on Mar 3, 2004 21:35:13 GMT -6
In the southern part of Canada where the wolf get rarely over 100 pounds, MJ 600, JAKE, CDR, Even a Bridger #3 properly modified will hold them.
But if you go NorthWest or eastern Tundra / Taiga wolves, Newhouse #114 - 4½, Alaskan #9, Braun wolf or copy of Newhouse from "Livestock protection" from TX are the way to go.
Stef
|
|
|
|
Post by Stef on Mar 3, 2004 22:10:46 GMT -6
A good friend of mine was testing for the government some wolf traps 2 years ago. The story I know is.... he was using #3 soft catch modified to resist a wolf catch. He caught 14 in 2 weeks + a bunch of foxes and he told me that he had only one escape and he said that it was his fault. His bigger was in the 95 pounds bracket. The only major problem he found with the softcatch is that all jaws were so distorded that the traps need new jaws after each catch....LoL Not only pads like coyote  Just a piece of chit ;D Stef |
|
|
|
Post by Stef on Mar 3, 2004 22:16:16 GMT -6
If you go on my Website, check on the products page, Musher from here caught this big boy in a JAKE. JC told me last summer that it was the first wolf caught in his JAKE that he heard about...last year. Musher was talking about it in 2002 ( I installed a JAKE for wolf and this and that) etc.... JC told me that he was happy with the end result but he was a bit scared before musher made the catch ;D BTW, musher bought more JAKE from him Stef |
|
|
|
Post by RiverRat on Mar 3, 2004 23:37:02 GMT -6
Do they still make alaska #9's ?
|
|
|
|
Post by musher on Mar 4, 2004 3:13:10 GMT -6
I own 2 brands of traps I am wolf confident with; the jake and the CDR wolf/cougar. I own a few Sterling 600's and they are excellent traps. The jaw spread is a little smaller and they are not as powerful as the CDR (which I think would hold onto a black bear) but I heard that they (Sterling) are quite popular in B.C.. I have no experience with the other types of wolf traps Steph mentions. The #3 soft catch story always amazes me. I've had more #3 coils amd #4 ls dismantled/twisted/broken by wolves than I care to count. I figure Steph's buddy was catching pups or checking his sets every 15 minutes! |
|
|
|
Post by vttrapper on Mar 4, 2004 5:06:28 GMT -6
Musher,
Is that because the #3 and 4 coils had sheet metel lever instead of spring wire levers? Or is the #3 and 4 traps you had wreaked totally inadaquite ?
frank
|
|
|
|
Post by musher on Mar 4, 2004 9:45:13 GMT -6
Jaws popped, twisted off, broken (at the ends). The trap frame is bent in a "U", forget about the pan and dog, and the chain looks like you towed a truck with it . A wolf is very strong and puts quite a struggle. It doesn't seem to take them very long to do the above either.
I think inadequate sums it up. ;D
|
|
|
|
Post by Dusty on Mar 4, 2004 14:50:48 GMT -6
I prefer the NH114 or it's Livestock Protection Company clones as a wolf trap, but they are PRICEY. My second preference is a CDR. I have no doubt that the Sterling et al class of traps will hold wolves, but the jawspread is a major disadvantage to me in my conditions. The Manning (which is still being made here in Fairbanks) has a lot going for it, but it is hard on feet. It is overpowered - a necessity to get that much jaw through ice. Wolves have disassembled several Bridger #3s for me, so I tend to agree with the 15 min check theory concerning softcatch traps.
The #9s sell for $110, the LPCs are around $150, and the Newhouse are worth $150 up to $$$$$$. The CDR's price is a major draw to me - if the #9s were more affordable, I'd buy them and thicken the jaws until they stopped breaking bones.
|
|
|
|
Post by Stef on Mar 4, 2004 19:01:28 GMT -6
No 15 minutes check theory....LoL Musher, you know, Rolland Lemieux who caught 100s of wolves for the government over the years used to used that trap. I know, he caught a lot of pups in august who were playing and eating in blueberries areas and he put radio collars on them for studies. That's why Pierre my friend tested the #3 soft catch (Modification like Rolland Lemieux used to use) for the Canadian fur institute. I know its a waste of $$$ but here as you know, we really like to throw our money by the windows. We can't help  You know already that our Canadian authority don't want to test any kind of foothold with trigger systems like the MB-MJ etc.... its too dangerous and like you said before. 14 years old trappers set marten or fisher traps who can break their hands in couple seconds!!! Great Canadian decision. Our gas is almost $1 now for a ¼ gallon and our dollar is strong. Great Canada!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Stef |
|
|
|
Post by Stef on Mar 4, 2004 21:32:59 GMT -6
Without theeth 3N?  ? |
|
|
|
Post by musher on Mar 5, 2004 5:03:55 GMT -6
Sorry, Steph, but I'm a little wary of any trapper that walks on a broom made of wolf tails when making a video to teach new trappers how to catch wolves!!! I'm also skeptical about the 100's part. The Parc de Laurentides wolf studies that I read about do not indicate numbers like that. I also can't see the gov't paying for 100's of collars.
The radio collared one I caught was one of his.
They wanted the collar back - for free. They wanted the skull. We dickered to a price of $35. I never got the check so I never sent the skull. I figured that I owned the wolf, the fleas on the wolf, and the collar that was on the wolf too. So I kept that also. R.L. told me the collar wasn't a big deal. Considering the price of such studies he didn't like reusing a collar since it might fail. Each year that collar is shown and handled by a bunch of 12 year olds as part of an Ecology course. You should see their eyes when you tell them to imagine what that collar has "seen" after being on a wolf for three years.
If I'm not mistaken, the couple that radio collared wolves in Algonquin park trapped a little over 200 in a decade or so. There is only about 250 wolves in the park - on a good year. Bear in mind this study was done because these are red wolves that were thought to be extinct. In the video I saw it looked to be a number 4. The biologist said it was "state of the art." The wolf was a pup.
I know guys that swear the victor #4ls or jump are wolf traps. That's because they know someone that caught a wolf once with one or they got lucky once. They also have stories about the monster wolf that broke everything.
You'd know more than me, but I think that wolf "maniacs" are rare here. I also wonder how "helpful"we are to each other. It's no wonder the snare is the preferred tool!
|
|
|
|
Post by z on Mar 5, 2004 5:51:43 GMT -6
Stef, you had me mesmerized at the fta/pta with your talk of wolves and your experiences with them!
Anybody ever thought of a "wolf cam"?
Now that'd be some purty cool chit............. Zz
|
|
|
|
Post by musher on Mar 5, 2004 11:42:57 GMT -6
Z: Canadian Geographic had an issue a year or so ago showing the results of camera trapping. One of the shots was of a mangy wolf.
You'd need good batteries on your cam as wolves might be gone for a while before returning. I also think the flash would spook them. They're difficult enough to catch without getting them nervous on purpose!
|
|
|
|
Post by Dusty on Mar 5, 2004 12:04:33 GMT -6
I think he means - at least I was thinking - the camera on the wolf. It's been done with other large terrestrial carnivores - most notably lions. Natl Geographic was talking about putting some on my ringed seals, a fairly natural extension since the camera was developed by a Weddell seal (the antarctic ecological equivilant of the ringed seal) biologist. Any camera that a ringed seal can get through a hole with would certainly fit a wolf, so the is certainly there. If the lion footage is any indication, most of the film would be of either dirt, sky, or another wolf sleeping, with the occasional get up, stretch, kill-and-eat-something sequence thrown in to keep it interesting.
Musher: Regardless of the latest self-proclaimed expert on the other board, catching enough wolves is downright easy - all you need is a helicopter and a capture gun.
|
|
|
|
Post by Stef on Mar 5, 2004 12:41:43 GMT -6
Musher, this will be short because I'm not home... but don't forget that Rolland caught wolves in the Papineau-Labelle area, La Verendery, des Laurentides etc.... I believe that he caught actually more than 100s of wolves for our good government  later Stef |
|
|
|
Post by musher on Mar 5, 2004 14:08:32 GMT -6
Steph: Your word is good with me. If you believe it's true I'll believe you. (I would not necessarily believe him, though! ;D) Imagine how many he would have caught using "good" traps!!!
Dusty: I guess I missed the expert or I don't visit that board. Anything worth learning? Also I missed the boat regarding the wolf cam Z mentionned. Dopey me! ;D
|
|
|
|
Post by Dusty on Mar 5, 2004 15:04:57 GMT -6
Musher: That was just a snipe at a guy who said catching 4 wolves with a helicopter at once was unlikely/impossible. It probably really is in most places, as most F&G departments have very little capture experience. Friends of mine from here have been involved in all kinds of crazy stuff in all kinds of crazy places because they do catch critters - lots of them - in AK. Crazy stuff, but our biologists do - get this - biology!! Whodathunkit. The critter cam I was referring to - at least it's initial phase - can be seen at www.nationalgeographic.com/features/98/crittercam/That may or may not be what Z was talking about - but it sounds like a pretty cool idea nonetheless! |
|
