Post by Steve Gappa on Mar 6, 2006 8:59:45 GMT -6
the problem with debate, as was pointed out last week, is that many don't read and comprehend points being made. Sometimes points are subtle, sometimes they knock you on the head.
Or misassumptions arise.
Heres a good personal example.
Through lack of knowledge, I used 1.75s to start coyote trapping. I ALWAYS said that the trap was too small, but it was like I used.
After getting some knowledge on the internet about bigger traps, I experimented with a few. I like bigger traps. Knew I would, and find that the #3 I'm using now, does all I want it to.
I see no NEED, for me, to use a #4.
Now- this gets distorted to "I think #4 aren't a better trap" and I get lambasted for having an opinion on them (and whats that opinion- that I don't doubt they are a good tool?) cause I never tried them.
And thats right- I never have. But so what? I'm not saying they aren't a good trap, I simply questioned- are they BETTER?
I don't know. All I can base it on is success rates.
and we are back to the 7%.
---------------------------------------------------
And I think thats a very important point that should be looked at. If- no matter using #1.75, softcatches or beefed up #4s the success rate is the SAME...... doesn't that indicate that the tool isn't as important as the skill involved?
That a good trapper will do about the same no matter WHAT tools he uses?
No matter WHAT lures he uses?
No matter WHAT type of sets he makes?
All right- let me have it!
----------------------------------------------------------
If the above is true- then..we come down to subtle things, small convictions and quirks. Things that CAN be debated.
A good exmaple is the gland lure thread- its as informative a thread as we have had in a while. And why? Because of debate. If, after the original post- all would have replied "right on, good observation"... would it have been deemed worthy of being archived? Think about that for a minute. Its debate- that MADE the thread so informative.
Or misassumptions arise.
Heres a good personal example.
Through lack of knowledge, I used 1.75s to start coyote trapping. I ALWAYS said that the trap was too small, but it was like I used.
After getting some knowledge on the internet about bigger traps, I experimented with a few. I like bigger traps. Knew I would, and find that the #3 I'm using now, does all I want it to.
I see no NEED, for me, to use a #4.
Now- this gets distorted to "I think #4 aren't a better trap" and I get lambasted for having an opinion on them (and whats that opinion- that I don't doubt they are a good tool?) cause I never tried them.
And thats right- I never have. But so what? I'm not saying they aren't a good trap, I simply questioned- are they BETTER?
I don't know. All I can base it on is success rates.
and we are back to the 7%.
---------------------------------------------------
And I think thats a very important point that should be looked at. If- no matter using #1.75, softcatches or beefed up #4s the success rate is the SAME...... doesn't that indicate that the tool isn't as important as the skill involved?
That a good trapper will do about the same no matter WHAT tools he uses?
No matter WHAT lures he uses?
No matter WHAT type of sets he makes?
All right- let me have it!
----------------------------------------------------------
If the above is true- then..we come down to subtle things, small convictions and quirks. Things that CAN be debated.
A good exmaple is the gland lure thread- its as informative a thread as we have had in a while. And why? Because of debate. If, after the original post- all would have replied "right on, good observation"... would it have been deemed worthy of being archived? Think about that for a minute. Its debate- that MADE the thread so informative.
