|
Post by dj88ryr on Mar 5, 2005 8:25:18 GMT -6
Taken from the NTA Report. We will see more of this each year now, we should have just told the EU to F*** Off and sold our fur elsewhere.
BOHICA
Montana HB 603 would require safety and education classes for anyone 12 years or older. HB 603 would also adopt BMP's for trapping by the Fish, Wildlife and Parks Commission. Vice President Buell testified at this hearing where the Montana Trappers Association and many others opposed this bill. The adoption of BMP's as regulatory tools is not only dangerous but irresponsible in my opinion. This effort is the very fear NTA leadership and BMP experts have had for many years. We will continue to monitor this situation.
|
|
|
Post by trappnman on Mar 5, 2005 8:48:41 GMT -6
heres the key sentence... This effort is the very fear NTA leadership and BMP experts have had for many years.
|
|
|
Post by trappincoyotes39 on Mar 6, 2005 8:41:33 GMT -6
No what the NTA and all trappers have been afraid of started years ago with the idea or possibilty loss of trapping, either nation wide or state by state. BMP experts, who do you classsify as that? Dave Hamilton isn't a BMP expert? or just because he doesn't take the doom and gloom thought line, then he is discounted as nothing more than what? As far as trappers ed, what is wrong with that? That should have been implamented years ago just from the ethics side of trapping, let alone all the others.
|
|
|
Post by trappnman on Mar 6, 2005 8:56:37 GMT -6
Just quoting a NTA report- argue your points with them.
Dave Hamilton is a man that has invested a lot of time, energy in the project. That gives him a vested interest in having the results accepted.
It doesn't make him "bad"- but it also doesn't follow that he is right.
Acceptance for the bmps has lost wharever momentum it had- and with continued results like the coon bmps and the actions in Montana- will continue to lose support among trappers.
|
|
|
Post by trappincoyotes39 on Mar 6, 2005 10:13:58 GMT -6
I would like to know who made that quote about told the EU to F*** off, because the BMP's aren't done just for the sake of the EU, we went a different route with the BMP if we were out to please the EU first and foremost then we would have adopted the standards that Canada is following. So with what you said, is Dave Hamilton a BMP expert or not? Support among trappers will be decided on a state by state basis, and how they use the BMP's for the betterment of trapping in each said state.
|
|
|
Post by trappnman on Mar 6, 2005 10:53:38 GMT -6
Once again- I caution you to READ a post before responding to it.
|
|
|
Post by trappincoyotes39 on Mar 6, 2005 12:10:39 GMT -6
tman i read the post but couldn't tell if it was a quote from NTA or from DJ, the wordage still doesn't address what I wrote, it isn't all about the EU!
|
|
|
Post by trappnman on Mar 6, 2005 13:34:31 GMT -6
Here is the NTA quote:
Montana HB 603 would require safety and education classes for anyone 12 years or older. HB 603 would also adopt BMP's for trapping by the Fish, Wildlife and Parks Commission. Vice President Buell testified at this hearing where the Montana Trappers Association and many others opposed this bill. The adoption of BMP's as regulatory tools is not only dangerous but irresponsible in my opinion. This effort is the very fear NTA leadership and BMP experts have had for many years. We will continue to monitor this situation.
___________________________________________
Regarding EU: To think that the bmps weren't PUSHED to fruitation because of worries about where to sell our fur, shows that you weren't paying attention to all the articles and columns published by in that era.
There was either 1) a very real chance that the EU would cut off ALL fur from the US or 2) or the proponents of the bmps pushed that concept knowing it was untrue.
In either case- it is very, very doubtful if as much press, money and testing would have been done without the declaration FROM the EU.
Are you seriously proposing otherwise?
|
|
|
Post by trappincoyotes39 on Mar 6, 2005 13:50:01 GMT -6
Yes, I still stand by the the fact that BMP testing was needed to finally prove the trappers side reguardless of a so called fur ban, to save many many dollars we could have put tariffs and other penalties on countrys that wouldn't take our fur, It wouldn't have takin all this testing to do so! The testing is apart from that of what they really wanted to see, so I ask why would they continue to buy our fur, even though our testing doesn't match there guidlines 100%? WE have plenty of other markets to sell fur, and Canada is following more closely what the EU really wanted, which if you feel so badly against our testing procedures, protocal, and the end result: try on what Stef and the others up North are dealing with! Again I state why would anyone degrade the fact of trapper ed? It should have been mandatory along time ago and the fuel to the antis fire could have been much less. Hunters ed and trappers ed in this day and age is something the public calls for, it teaches ethics, proper techiniques and saftey, why would we as a whole, look at that as bad thing? What does Joe public think of those unwilling to go ahead with such an endevour?
|
|
|
Post by dj88ryr on Mar 6, 2005 15:19:36 GMT -6
TC, Telling the EU to F*** Off were my words, and I still stand by that. These BMPs are just an idea to further someones job, if this bad science is used to make legislation, we all lose, plain and simple. You are NEVER going to satisfy the antis, it doesn't matter how much you try to appease them or see things from their perspective, it AIN'T going to happen.
|
|
|
Post by trappnman on Mar 6, 2005 15:43:12 GMT -6
TC35- I'm not going to discuss what took place years ago- go back and read the old articles.
(and to save you the trouble of replying in a post that the EU didn't START the bmps...I said "caused the push" and that a rock solid, firm factual statement- look it up please)
Trappers ed and bmp issues are TWO SEPARATE ISSUES.
They are not mutually inclusive.
Many state offered trappers ed long before the bmps were even a twinkle in the Vet councils eye...
|
|
|
Post by trappincoyotes39 on Mar 6, 2005 17:58:22 GMT -6
DJ the BMP's are not in place to appease the anti's there in place to defend ourselves against the antis, in many, many ways. I know there going to always go there own route which is far from center on any issue they bring up, but the BMP's will allow ALL STATES to have the factual data to back up the claims of trappers that our equipment is sound and just and will do what we claim becuase we have the factual data to back it up! Trappers ed and bmp issues are TWO SEPARATE ISSUES.
I don't feel so tman, sure trappers ed has been around before the BMP's in how many states? How many mandated trappers ed? Still to this day? WE need a national based program more like hunters ed, where outside of regional variances a course study all hits on the same points in roughly the same manner and time frame, again brings clout to trappers just as hunters ed has helped leap and bounds with hunting and the good PR from it. BMP's tie into it guidlines of traps that new trappers or ones getting back into the sport that have been gone for awhile, can see all the new technology and new styles and mods that help both the critters and trappers again in many ways, I feel it very smart to encorporate both together. You see it a different way so be it.
|
|
|
Post by dj88ryr on Mar 6, 2005 18:12:57 GMT -6
TC, you spend all this time. effort and money to develop this bad science, it gets legislated right up our rectums. The anti's just change gears and attack from another angle, all you have really done is help the antis hamstring us. If someone wanted to defend the use of steel jawed traps, it should have been a 100% trapper only project, then we wouldn't have these ludicrous thresholds, They are going to be dispatched in most instances when the trapper gets there, I DON"T SKIN FEET!! You guys have all helped make bad science turn into possible law, for the rest of us, who wanted no part of it.
|
|
|
Post by Steve Gappa on Mar 6, 2005 18:34:35 GMT -6
I agree with trappers ed- but a couple hour course and then a bmp book?
No- better to have a day in the field- and being SHOWN proper techniques.
THATS trappers ed....
Understand this TC- I was vilified on Dobbins a few years ago for being one of the few to DEFEND the bmps- I think they have potential to do some good. I might or mighht not have mentioned I had a dialogue with Paul Wellstone concerning his support of trapping -and the bmps were a critical point.
But the bmps have the potential to do much harm- and unfortunatly- those fears are all too real. Consider how the restraining testing is now SNARE testing to many states...and what happened in Montana should be a very serious wakeup call to any listening....trappnman
|
|
|
Post by trappincoyotes39 on Mar 6, 2005 19:08:22 GMT -6
If someone wanted to defend the use of steel jawed traps, it should have been a 100% trapper only project, then we wouldn't have these ludicrous thresholds, They are going to be dispatched in most instances when the trapper gets there, I DON"T SKIN FEET!!
DJ re read what I posted from a study done on who Joe public relys on information concerning trapping! Trappers sadly and wrongly are at the bottom of the list, but we need to reach these people in the correct way to save trapping, sorry just fact.
I don't skin feet either and I don't keep live coyotes around either, the thresholds are set, and you could split hairs overthem until the end of time there will be no pleasing 100% of the people! You must look at the fact we must remain crediable to joe public, the voters that could decide the outcome of trapping in your state or mine! I see all of the proactive things the NTA and BMPs doing is adding credit to what we say and what we do, trappers ed would just be another positive step in the right direction, we need to be at or near the top of the list that Joe Public can/would rely on for information on trapping, these things will help garner our way up that ladder.
|
|
|
Post by foxtail on Mar 6, 2005 19:51:15 GMT -6
------------------------------------------------------------------
The problem there, is that he waffled as bad as Kerry does. He told us to our faces that he supported trapping, and then he turned around and told the animal rights people that he would do everything in his power to stop trapping in MN. He voted to screw us too.
I support mandatory trappers ed, but I support it as done through the MTA and not on a national level. Once you let the fed govt get involved, you have a mess that we, the trappers will have to clean up and trust me, it would not be easy.
Despite what Hamilton and TC35 say, I still can not support the BMPs because there is way too much room to screw us with them.
|
|
|
Post by trappincoyotes39 on Mar 7, 2005 14:31:52 GMT -6
Foxtail who said the federal government was to be invovled in National trappers ED? I was thinking the NTA could be at the top along with state Biologist working together, and have workshops just as hunters Ed instructors do, to keep things on the same page and to keep new and current info flowing to all trappers and exspecially the new ones. I never said, the feds had to do anything, hunt safe is a direct involvement of many states working together, that would be of great benefit to all trappers. I think it should be 12-16 hours, some class room time and time spent outside, our hunters ed is a 2 day program and it takes all of 2 days to get in all the information that new hunters need to be safe and ethical hunters, the more we can better inform new trappers the better for trapping as a whole.
|
|
|
Post by foxtail on Mar 7, 2005 18:43:23 GMT -6
I can't find it now.
I an sure that it was in this thread. Maybe it was not, but it was brought up somewhere.
|
|
|
Post by Toptrapper1 on Mar 22, 2005 22:37:31 GMT -6
I was a test trapper for the BMP and can tell you that collecting data to defend trapping was a secondary outcome. Pasafying the EU was the primary reason for the testing. Now if we come up with some data that can be used in a way to combat antis so much the better.
DJ I cannot agree with you saying the testing was bad science. If the test would have been done solely by trappers the reults would have been sculfed at that was the reason we got the FWS and NTA involved.
I am not happy about the BMP being made law. As I was told this would not happen but think about this by adopting the BMPs we make it much harder for antis to attack us because we now have scientic data to back up our side. It is good solid data the antis fear because john q public makes decisions based on fact not emotion which is all the antis have going for them Just my opinion
|
|
|
Post by trappnman on Mar 23, 2005 8:56:18 GMT -6
I'm one that started using the term "bad science" and I say this becasue the protocal and the precedures- were really drawn out of a hat, for all practical matters.
Threshold scores- based on what?
is 55 scientifically proved a more accurate indication of (what-pain, damage, ??.... I'm not really sure)
Or is 50 or 60 or even 65 the same? In practical terms.
What is interesting- is you talk to most trappers- and they beleive that bmp testing was to determine traps to reduce foot daamge and that the qualifications were based o nthat.
Not entirely true. Injury scores are also obtained from cuts, scratches, abrasions, a chipped toot, a cut mouth...really- any damage. And this all adds to the score results.
Was that good science? Or the influence from the vet council, who as a group is opposed to trapping?
and should threshold scores be the same for all animals?
I see no scientific evidence pertaining to this either way.
No way, no how should the same thresholds be applied to coyotes as coon as muskrats.
The other thing that bothers me very much- is that the raccoon testing was done- based on what Dave has posted here- with methods that INCREASE and almost GUARENTEE failure of the traps.
We had a coon bmp tester on here that stated the same in stronger terms- he said he was PREVENTED from making sets where he knew, from past experience, that chewing would be less. And had to make ssets where he knew, like I know- chewing is inevitible.
I listed a couple of methods that reduce chewing on coon quite a bit- an 1 method that eliminates chewing 100%. Those threads have gone unaswered- leaving me to reenforce my original conclusion- that the coon bmps were set up to fail.
In no way did I ever say or mean to imply- that the testers in all the bmp tests weren't doing exactly like they were told to do.
|
|