Post by trappnman on Feb 19, 2005 12:30:20 GMT -6
"The snare deal in Wis was flawed because they limited the scope of testing to very,very,very few tools and cables and locks, it when in prejudged as a non entagnlement, live catch deal, they never tested snares with the ability to kill!!!!"
Exactly- now substitute "coon bmps" for snares.
"NTA and FTA invited experts are
always present in these discussions, and many of the traps we test are tested entirely at the suggestion of NTA and FTA. "
Always? every meeting? and as asked- what input did they have? Remember, I know a little about the FTA position and problems with the bmp committees.
Most of what was recommended- was ignored.
220s and 160s?
Thought those were never going to be tested- that the bmps were for RESTRAINING traps only? That Canada was doing the bodygrip testing? Like the snare deal.
"Please read the above mentioned again and you can see the input."
I saw a list of names- but no input? Again, please be specific- after all, I'm just a coon trapper and am unable to infer- so spell it out.
What recommendations were adopted after being suggested by the NTA and FTA?
One threshold criteria fits all? A dog is a pig is a boy?
and by the way- I'd be interested i nthe scientific stuide in which these thresholds were obtained and indeed- actually how the Vets came up with these arbitrary numbers. You act like the Thresholds were on the 3rd Clay Tablet.... a very good case can be made that these numbers were pulled out of thin air. And now they are aobve reproach? The industry standard for all time?
Matter of fact- the NTA ARGUED FOR different coon thresholds- but was stymied by...da da...the Vets!
Did ja know that?
Tell you what- I'll go to all doulbe jaws for coon on land the same day you use nothing but 1.75s for coyotes.
Ready...set...go!
Exactly- now substitute "coon bmps" for snares.
"NTA and FTA invited experts are
always present in these discussions, and many of the traps we test are tested entirely at the suggestion of NTA and FTA. "
Always? every meeting? and as asked- what input did they have? Remember, I know a little about the FTA position and problems with the bmp committees.
Most of what was recommended- was ignored.
220s and 160s?
Thought those were never going to be tested- that the bmps were for RESTRAINING traps only? That Canada was doing the bodygrip testing? Like the snare deal.
"Please read the above mentioned again and you can see the input."
I saw a list of names- but no input? Again, please be specific- after all, I'm just a coon trapper and am unable to infer- so spell it out.
What recommendations were adopted after being suggested by the NTA and FTA?
One threshold criteria fits all? A dog is a pig is a boy?
and by the way- I'd be interested i nthe scientific stuide in which these thresholds were obtained and indeed- actually how the Vets came up with these arbitrary numbers. You act like the Thresholds were on the 3rd Clay Tablet.... a very good case can be made that these numbers were pulled out of thin air. And now they are aobve reproach? The industry standard for all time?
Matter of fact- the NTA ARGUED FOR different coon thresholds- but was stymied by...da da...the Vets!
Did ja know that?
Tell you what- I'll go to all doulbe jaws for coon on land the same day you use nothing but 1.75s for coyotes.
Ready...set...go!